Trump Executive Order Ruled Unconstitutional by Judge

Trump Executive Order Ruled Unconstitutional by Judge \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has permanently blocked a Trump-era executive order targeting Perkins Coie, calling it unconstitutional retaliation. The ruling delivers a major blow to Trump’s efforts to punish elite law firms tied to investigations or legal opposition. Other firms similarly targeted have also succeeded in blocking or settling such orders.

Quick Looks

• Judge Beryl Howell struck down Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie.
• The court ruled the order as “unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination.”
• Order banned security clearances, federal contracts, and building access for firm employees.
• Perkins Coie previously represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
• Trump criticized the firm’s ties to opposition research on Russia.
• Other top law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey—also challenged similar orders.
• Some firms settled by providing free legal services in exchange for avoiding sanctions.
• The DOJ was ordered to notify all agencies that enforcement is nullified.
• Howell’s ruling cited the importance of lawyer independence from executive retaliation.
• Trump’s executive order campaign aimed to reshape civil society and punish legal dissent.

Deep Look

In a sweeping legal rebuke, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell has permanently blocked an executive order issued by former President Donald Trump, aimed at sanctioning the elite law firm Perkins Coie. The ruling, issued Friday, declares the order unconstitutional retaliation and a violation of the First Amendment’s protections against viewpoint discrimination. It is the most decisive rejection yet of a controversial series of Trump’s executive actions targeting legal professionals perceived as political enemies.

The 102-page ruling dismantles the Trump administration’s justification for its sanctions against the firm, asserting that the executive order was rooted in political grievance, not national security or ethical enforcement. In strikingly direct language, Howell wrote, “No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm… this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare.”

The reference, to the famous line “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” underscores the symbolic weight of the ruling — positioning Trump’s order as a dangerous precedent aimed at silencing legal opposition. Howell further wrote that the firm was punished not for illegal conduct, but for “expressing support for employment policies the President does not like,” and for representing clients the President does not like or who challenge his policies.

The executive order in question directed all federal agencies to take coordinated punitive actions against Perkins Coie, including revoking its security clearances, terminating contracts, and banning firm employees from federal buildings. Though framed under the guise of national interest, the order explicitly referenced the firm’s work on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 — a longstanding point of obsession for Trump.

The firm’s former attorney Marc Elias was also singled out in administration statements and conservative media. Elias was involved in commissioning opposition research that included the now-infamous Steele dossier, which examined alleged ties between Trump and Russia. Although Elias left the firm in 2021, Trump’s executive order appeared designed to punish Perkins Coie for its prior political associations and litigation support against his administration.

Judge Howell had previously issued temporary injunctions against the enforcement of several parts of the order, signaling strong skepticism during earlier hearings. Her final ruling not only voids the order permanently but also directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought to circulate the opinion to all executive agencies, ensuring no further action is taken under the nullified directive.

The case is part of a broader legal and constitutional pushback against what many legal scholars and civil liberties advocates describe as Trump’s campaign to weaponize executive power against political and institutional opposition. Several other prestigious law firms — including WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey — faced similar executive orders and have since won temporary blocks or entered settlements to stave off further retaliation.

Some firms, reportedly under pressure to avoid litigation, have entered agreements requiring them to commit hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services aligned with Trump administration-approved causes — a move critics view as coercive and antithetical to the principle of legal independence.

Perkins Coie, by contrast, pursued a full legal challenge, and Judge Howell’s ruling is now likely to serve as a landmark decision reinforcing the protections of the legal profession from executive interference. Legal experts say the judgment affirms the constitutional autonomy of lawyers to represent clients — including political adversaries of the president — without fear of government reprisal.

In an era marked by political polarization and executive overreach, the ruling may also set a critical precedent for preserving the independence of America’s legal institutions. It underscores that while presidents may wield vast authority, that power does not extend to punishing firms simply for taking legal positions or clients that challenge executive decisions.

With this decision, the judiciary has once again served as a guardrail against the politicization of law, and Judge Howell’s opinion sends a clear message: retribution is not a constitutionally valid strategy.

More on US News